Yes, I think looking at all possiblities is important. Sensible and
responsible I would say, as opposed to “lenient”.
The activator has valid QSOs on 20m, so there is no danger of him
losing the activation points if he does need to delete any 40m QSOs
that turn out to be invalid. The chasers can do the same.
Try looking at the bigger picture Tom, in the eyes of hams in general, sota ops now operate outside the recognised legal frequencies, if you are not aware, that is against the law, but your only concern is for his activator and his chasers logs, how bizzare!!
Barry, I still don’t follow your “Whenever I activate 40 ssb I am
always asked to qsy below 7.100 for the French chasers” remark.
Can you explain?
73, Tom M1EYP
Read this thread back and you will find an recent example spot, asking inky to qsy below 7.100 for a French chaser, I often get the same request.
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Please friends, slow down ! Stefan made a mistake as we all could do
it !
Absolutely Alain… it even seems that a group of us here have been “confused or mistaken” about the CEPT operating conditions in just one country. I wonder if any of us know all band plans related to all CEPT signatories?
It would seem to be an unfortunate mistake that was clearly not premeditated…
In any case… good luck to Stefan for being out and about activating in another country.
I admit to being confused myself when I looked at the band plan on the REF site with my O level French (hence the quick removal of the link when I realised).
As we say in English “C’est un orage dans une tasse de thé” …with many apologies to our French colleagues for any grammatical “faux pas” hi
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Please friends, slow down ! Stefan made a mistake as we all could
do
it !
Absolutely Alain… it even seems that a group of us here have been
“confused or mistaken” about the CEPT operating conditions
in just one country. I wonder if any of us know all band plans related
to all CEPT signatories?
73 Marc G0AZS
With all due respect Marc, we should all make ourselves familiar with the cept conditions in the country we intend to visit, before we visit and activate.
I agree with the rest of your post, Stefan made a simple mistake if he did transmit, it’s easily done.
What I find hard to swallow is that certain people seem to want a “cover up” rather than address the issue now so that it doesn’t happen again, especially under the sota banner.
I see no evidence of a “cover up” here. There has been no evidence offered here as yet that any contacts took place on 7.118, but I have been told by PEM that such contacts actually happened. If the 40 metre part of the activation is put into the database it can easily be removed, and the same goes for the chaser entries. As I see it, that is the limit of our responsibility, we have no mandate to police overseas operations, only to make sure that such errors or possible deliberate misconduct will not be valid for SOTA and thus will be without profit. As I understand them the rules make no provision for any further penalty, and one occurance does not seem to me to justify additional rule making, although further occurances would lead to this position being reviewed.
No sota rules were broken, fine, well all’s well then, are you suggesting that the fact that an international law was broken by someone representing sota shouldn’t worry us? and to think of the reasons 3 of sotas finest were banned for, I don’t know what to think any more.
I’m not suggesting the man in question should be punished, I have stated all along that we have a responsibility to address the issue to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
P.S. This rule WAS broken, wouldn’t you agree?
SOTA General Rules state:
3.7.1.2
All operation must comply with the amateur radio licensing regulations
and must use the permitted amateur radio bands of the country in which
the Association is based
In reply to 2E0PXW:
That is a curious gloss to put on my words, Barry. Check the rules for yourself, rules were broken as well as laws, but whilst we can address the breaking of rules we have no mandate to enforce the laws, or are you in fact suggesting that we should report him to the French authorities?
There is no way that we could ensure that this problem won’t recur. Accidents will happen, we can’t prevent them, all we can do is make rules which ensure that nobody will profit from breaking the law, and that was done long ago. By your wording it would seem that you regard this as inadequate and we should do more. Perhaps you would like to make a few suggestions, you might come up with something we haven’t thought of.
I admit to being confused myself when I looked at the band plan on the
REF site with my O level French (hence the quick removal of the link
when I realised).
I have been also confused is spite of my rather good french…
because, as suggested Fritz, I’m often in the 7.000 / 7.040 segment!
And don’t worry about grammatical “faux pas”, it’s not better for me.
An international law has been broken. Fact.
The person responsible did so in the name of sota. Fact.
Being MT, I’m surprised by the flipant response from yourself and Tom in particular over such an important issue. You don’t seem at all bothered by this, yet you banned others for something ultimately trivial. I’m confused Brian.
There is an opportunity to highlight this issue, discuss it sensibly, maybe email the person concerned to explain politely that he broke sota rules, and with luck, avoid any reocurrance of it under the sota banner.
I was simply confused. You mentioned that you often get requests to QSY below 7.1MHz for French chasers, and yet you have never done so. Why would that be? I am sure, it is not the reason you state above - ie that you cite me as some kind of role model, and what is more, perceive me to be some kind of selfish operator and hence you follow suit.
You don’t need to bite Barry. Just explain why you cite the example of being asked to QSY down for French chasers, when in reality you never do anything of the sort.
Congratulations on the CW progress by the way. I’ve noticed your sudden surge in the CW spotting stakes, and look forward to working you on the key sometime soon.
Tom, I refuse to play your games. I’ll keep my opinion of whether you are a selfish activator to myself, thank you. Like I said, I’m not biting.
I find your remarks about my cw progress to be sarcastic. As for my cw spots, you know that Mike DSP skypes cw spots to me, in fact many such spots quote “DSP unsure of ref” or such like, just because mike was wrongly banned from spotting doesn’t mean he can’t forward spots through me, or does it, you let me know if that’s the case and I will stop the practice forthwith.
Is this a clever ploy to steer us away ftom the real issue of this thread?
Post what you want, I won’t reply and be drawn into petty arguement with you. Good night.
In our neighbouring countries Norway and Finland the frequencies 7.0-7.2 MHz is allowed for ham radio, but not in Sweden -yet! Why?
Within Region 1, broadcasting on 7.1-7.2 MHz still have a primary status in countries still using frequencies in this segment, until March 30 2009.
In Sweden we have Radio Sweden, SR International who still have transmitters operating in the 7 MHz Broadcasting band and claiming status as primary user. But they will leave this band in march 2009, then it will be OK for us SM hams to use 7.0-7.2 MHz. So don’t be suprised in the near future if any activation from a summit in SM will take place on a FQ above 7.1 MHz!
Norway and Finland does not have any BC transmissions on 7.1-7.2 and hence they can’t claim status as primary user. How it is in France and other countries - i don’t know, but i belive many countries will allow this segment after March 2009.
An international law has been broken. Fact.
The person responsible did so in the name of sota. Fact.
Being MT, I’m surprised by the flipant response from yourself and Tom
in particular over such an important issue. You don’t seem at all
bothered by this, yet you banned others for something ultimately
trivial. I’m confused Brian.
There is an opportunity to highlight this issue, discuss it sensibly,
maybe email the person concerned to explain politely that he broke
sota rules, and with luck, avoid any reocurrance of it under the sota
banner.
73
Barry 2E0PXW
Barry, where have I denied that a rule was broken? Where have I denied that a law was broken? Where have I given the impression that I wasn’t bothered by this? And last but far from least, where have I been flippant about the matter? Flippant!
We are coming up to three dozen posts on this thread, so far, how can that be anything other than highlighting and discussing the issue? Do you really think that the discussion has not been sensible so far? Furthermore you, yourself , said that you didn’t want him to be punished, so what more do you want done? We could email him and tell him that his operations on 40 metres were illegal, and if in fact he attempts to put the contacts in the database that will be done, though in the light of this publicity that is unlikely to happen. I should imagine that he has read this thread and can well imagine his feelings.
In the absence of contrary evidence, we have to assume that an operational error was made, without thinking he operated on his usual frequency forgetting that the frequency was illegal were he was. Bearing in mind that he was at an altitude where the thin air starts to have an effect on the body, and that he had made a major effort to get up there, I would think that he would be quite mortified that some of his operating was invalid and went for nothing, without the public pillory that he is being forced to endure.
Content yourself that the illegal operating will not be recorded in the database, and that this thread is likely to act as reminder for others until it fades from memory.